.

-~
,.

) ~"'''A'='''''''''''''''''UII'''-''''''''''''"U'" (fj~)' ,",-.' ....II."_ ....... . " U ,U"''''''f f~

It.~

l~('''Uln'''''''''''''''-'''UI u.... .. q1.~ -, ~J"UI"""""''''''-''Uln.. _~'

T Anti-Rationalistic
I !
I
R
I

~~

Lectures 1
AUCKLAND,

DELIVERED AT EAST STREET THE MISSION HALL, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF AUCKLAND BROTHERHOOD.

I B
~

i
I

I
=

No. 3.

I Is Christianity Indebted to ~ ; Heathen Mythology? =

I'

By GEO. ALD.RIDGE,
Editor of "The Bible Standard."

II
I
Ii!

PRICE

THREEPENCE.

I
i I
i "

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY PHIPPS

& HALL,

31 HIGH STREET,

AUCKLAND.

"
. .... -.' " U"'''_.'' ... '''"III''"J'

r;~
~.',III"_ ''' II...... '' II''~}). I

...:;..~

~('~'

~Jl ~'''''"I1''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"''''''''''''''''-'''"1'41(~~)II''II''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"I'''u .......... ,"~ f.~.

No. 3.

Is Christianity Indebted to Heathen Mythology?

'.

.Is Cllristianity, Indebted to',

,

.Heathen' Mythology?
MR.
CH.AI~A~, LADIES AND GE :TTLEMEN, .

It was my endeavour at the first lecture to put before you such evidence as satisfied me concerning the historical existence of the person whom we know as Jesus Christ. I brought that evidence from sources that are easily investigated, and I made the appeal to you that on the basis of Rationalism from the Christian standpoint we may believe that Ohristianity is. established in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, But I realised that iin order to impress this conclusion on the minds of those who attend here, it was necessary for me to go further, so on Sunday Iast I endeavoured to put before you the evidence which I think justifies the belief of Christians in the Virgin Birth of our Lord Jesus Ohrist. The objection was made at the close of the first lecture; that if the evidence I had produced did go to esta blish the historicity of Jesus Christ, it fell far short of establishing the extraordinary things that were said about. His birth, His miracles, and His resurrection from the dead. . Lbelieve in taking one step at a time, and the nearest first, and therefore, in my first lecture, I put down a peg that I think will stand, and whence we can proceed as from a point of certainty, I am not aware that there is anything to remove the evidence produced in favour of the historicity of the person known as Jesus Christ. On Sunday last I put before you the objections which are raised against the Ohristian belief regarding the extraordinary manner in which Jesus Ohrist is said to have entered into life on earth, and when I had examined the objections, and tried to show how unworthy they are; I then put, in the closing part of .my address, some positive evidence in favour of such a thing happening. I called attention to the problems that are pressing for solution upon. every side, and contended, .and still contend, that there is no solution to these pressing problems, apart from the introduction of 'a new life. I am prepared to go the whole length of an argument on that phase, which I think will bear .every possible strain that can be . put upon it. Only as there is 'a new life force injected into

43

humanity can there possibly be a complete solution for the ills that oppress men from the physical, from the social, and from the spiritual side 1 This afternoon I desire to carry the argument a little further, because the question concerning the Virgin Birth is only one of the many objections raised against the New Testament teaching. At the present time there is being put before us the idea that Christianity, as we know it now, has come to us from the Old World imaginings that were born probably in the very early days of human history, and that have grown into story form out of the original formless myths, and that at the time when Christianity was introduced it is said that, either by the disciples directly, or by the unconscious cerebration of the people who were interested in the teaching these myths of olden time were cast into the melting-pot and came out as the Christian religion we have to-day. I think it is worthy of investigation to find whether this is so or not. As I said last week, the man who opposes Christianity has no corner in assertions, therefore it would. be quite a right thing for me to make assertions on the opposite side. But assertions, on whichever side they are made, are of no value unless they are supported by some kind of proof. There must be something to justify them. When our friends affirm, from their side, that Christianity is indebted to heathen myths, there must be some proof advanced to warrant the statement, and if I, from my side, declare that Christianity as a system has no relationship to heathen myths, you would naturally expect me to advance some evidence in favour of the position which I take. First of all I shall show you some of the objections from the Rationalistic side, and then I will try to put before you a line of testimony which I believe to be sound, concerning the origin of these so-called myths, and the relation of these stories to New Testament Christianity. Let me say that this present opposition is, to the present generation, a comparatively new line of attack on Christianity. I believe that Christian people generally, and the man in the street do not know about this particular phase. It will probably come to you as something new, and yet in the literature from the Rationalistic side it has been in existence for a long time if not prominently so. I have already pointed out that from the earliest centuries the opponents brought forward this kind of objection, and that it was met by the early believers, and solidly and satisfactorily met-so satisfactorily that it practically died out until comparatively recent years. The earliest modern writer (of those with whose works I am acquainted) in favour of the idea that Christianity is indebted to heathen myths was a Frenchman named Dupuis, who wrote a very extensive work, in which he sought to establish that Christianity arose out of solar myths, and that gradually,

44

"
by the Christian believers adopting the views that were current among the heathen of their time, the system called Christianity came into being, and has existed from that time until the present century . .Dr. Fraser in the Golden Bouqh ; preceding him, Dr. Tyler in Primitive Culture, and Max Muller in Comparative Mythology, and now Mr. Grant Allen in his Evolution of the Idea of a God, have probably done most to popularise this particular phase of scientific study, and it is from their works that Rationalistic advocates are drawing the weapons with which they assail Christianity. Now we must be prepared for this form of attack. We ought to say, "WeB, we will hear the evidence, and we will irivestigate, and see for ourselves whether or not these things are as they are put before us." I am not of opinion that Christians ought to keep their faith in some secret locked-up part of their being where nobody can get at it-it ought to be always ready for presentation. The Apostle Peter says that we ought to be ready at all times to give a reason for the hope that is in us. We should always be ready to give an answer, and the Apostle Paul has declared that we should " Prove all things," and " hold fast that which is good." I believe that Christianity is a good thing, and I do not fear to stand before you to declare that it is a good thing, and I further believe that, being a good thing, it will bear every possible test that may be brought to bear upon it, and so in the light of this modern attack-this frontal attack upon Christianity, we ought to be prepared to say, "Now, will Christianity bear this strain?" and set ourselves to investigate, holding, of course, in the meantime that the faith in Christianity is not to be overturned by assertions, but that it must be held until something effective shall be produced to show that it is wrong. I was told on Sunday last, and rightly told, that there are men in the Church who are saying that Christianity is indebted to heathen mythology, and I was asked to explain it. I know perfectly well there are men in the Church who are affirming this. English writers of repute, American writers of repute, German writers of repute are to be found who assert that Christianity is indebted to heathen myth, but I am not at all worried about that. I hold that a man's scholarship may be very great indeed, and yet he may be very ignorant about the Bible. I believe there is-if you rwill pardon the common expression-" There is many an old woman" in the Church who knows more about Bible truths than some of those who have many letters after their name. Only as a man shows that he has not only investigated the letter of the Word, but also the internal evidence of its truth-that is, its divine purpose-only so is his testimony concerning it of real value. When you find such a man, then you will listen to him and be able, because of

45

the plainness and accessibility of the evidence, to arrive at some conclusion that will justify your view on whether he is right or wrong. Now the men who are in the Church (I think some of them ought to be out of it) who are teaching that the origin of Christianity, or of some of its teachings, is to be found in mythology, are not agreed amongst themselves as to its source, nor agreed as to the things which are said to have been originated from heathen myths; indeed, there are three or four different theories which are mutually destructive. When you have a number of theories set up to turn history into myth, which tend to oppose each other, there is always room for another hypothesis, and that is that the thing itself is true. Now, let me illustrate that point as it concerns the Virgin Birth. There is that eminent man I cited last Sunday, Professor Harnack, who, in company with another German, Professor Lobstein, has written concerning the Virgin Birth, and they agree that it originated by a line of Jewish myth, based upon the statement found in Isaiah: " Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son." They say that this idea arose entirely in Jewish circles, and could not have arisen from any other source. Now another German comes along-almost equally eminent, Professor Soltau-and he says: " This, at any rate, is clear, the belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ could not have originated in Palestine; indeed, it could never have taken its rise in Jewish circles. The idea that the Holy Spirit begat Jesus can have no other than an Hellenic source." Here, you see, are two contradictory theories, each supported by eminent men. Professor Harnack says it arose on Jewish soil only and within Jewish circles only. Professor Soltau says" No, that is absurd; it could not have arisen save from Hellenic sources." Then he puts forward his view, and to that Harnack replies that " the idea of the birth from the Virgin as a heathen myth contradicts the earliest development of Christian tradition, which is free from heathen myths, so far as these had not already been received by wide circles of Jews, which in the case of that idea, is not demonstrable." That is, the idea that the Jews would receive it from heathen myths is absolutely incredible. Thus these writers stand one against another, and now here is another, Professor Cheyne, and he says: " The real origin is that from early pre-Christian days, from Babylonia, from Persia, from Phrygia, there has gradually filtered down a certain tradition 'which was taken hold of by Christians, and out of that there was developed the idea of the Virgin Birth." (I have cited these representative writers from Professor Orr's book on the Virgin Birth.) Now, we ask, which of these theories are we to adopt ~ Some will go after' one leader, and some after another. In the meantime I do not propose to follow any of these gentlemen across the wilderness until I know something better about the journey they would

46

take us, and its destination. I believe there is room for another hypothesis, and that is, that the Bible story is true, and meanwhile I am holding on to that. Having referred already to the theories of the men who are writing concerning the origin of Christianity from the standpoint of these heathen myths, I take up once more this book of Vivian's. I refer to it because of its popularity, its wide circulation and the statement made that the Bishop of London 'agrees" that it has done more to damage Christianity than all the rest of sceptical books put together.", I take it, then, because of the claims that are made on its behalf to be a representative book, and because it is supposed to express the freshest and most up-to-date opinions of Rationalists. Now I find Mr. Vivian saying, on this particular subject on which I am addressing you this afternoon, that the Rationalist" denies the originality of Christianity," and contends that " It is a cult which adopted, step by step, the miracles and the myths of the popular Gentile religions," and then he refers to the books I have mentioned already, Dr. Fraser's Golden Bough and others, and he says that we Christian apologists ought to read them. Some of us are doing our best, but there are so many books to be read that I have to pick and choose. I like to read both sides. When our Rationalist friends write against any particular teaching of ours, I read it, if possible, and when anybody writes on the other side, I like to read that too, and if some of these books tend, to make me wobble, then I read the Bible, and that stiffens my backbone, and puts me right again, These works, written from the standpoint of comparative religion, are chiefly concerned in the collection of facts concerning the customs, habits, myths of peoples through all time the wide world over, and arrive at conclusions against Christianity by the compilation and comparison of these things, and by emphasising and 'impressing upon the minds of those who read, the similarities discoverable between them and Christian doctrines and ritual. That is, their authors do not directly attack Christianity=-they allow the compilations themselves, and the hypotheses deduced to act against Christianity with the evident desire of weakening or overturning it. I read, so far as I can, on both sides, and form my own conclusion. I do not think the ordinary reader is likely to be much attracted by Dr. Fraser's books. The latest edition is certainly readable, but the man in the street will not care much about it. To use Lincoln's words: <" For those who like that sort of thing, that's the sort of thing they like." When the hypotheses are produced we can weigh and consider them, and test to see if they are strong enough to overthrow the views we hold. These men who are writing concerning mythology occupy two different standpoints. They are not agreed as to the

47

origm of myths.

Dr. Fraser may be looked upon now as the leader of one side, and Herbert Spencer and Mr. Grant AlIen may be spoken of as the leaders on the other side. Some look upon myths as arising from Animism. They consider that the evidence shows that men in the early times noted the sunshine and its effects, observed the gtowth of the trees, and the flowing of the water in the brooks, and the effects of storms, and supposed personalities behind them possessing powers which enabled them to help man or to war against his interests, and therefore these had to be placated by offerings and sacrifices. But Mr. Grant Allen, following Mr. Spencer, adopts Euhemerism, and says that myths arose out of the belief that men were able, after death, to influence those who lived, and very often to influence them maliciously, and so the ghosts of dead men had to be placated, and thus arose the idea of gods. There is a wide difference between the two views. Mr. Grant Allen says in Evolution of the Idea of a God: " In one word I believe that corpse worship is the protoplasm of religion, while admitting that folklore is the protoplasm of mythology, and of its more modern and philosophical offshoot, theology." Here, you see, he tries to build a little bridge over from the theory of Euhemerism to the theory of Animism. These are the views that are before us, and I would say: " Gentlemen, you had better agree about this matter, for the starting-point is important, and when you come to a conclusion on that, we shall probably be able better to say whether or not your later deductions are worthy of acceptance." I pass from that, and now deal with the question as to whether or not heathen mythology ever influenced Christianity. Those who have read Hyslop's Two Babylons will know that a Christian writer of repute has shown that some forms of worship in churches where they have ornate ceremonial, have originated from the heathen rites connected with the myths of olden times. There is no doubt about it. They were taken from the practices of the old pagans. When some of the early missionaries introduced Christianity into a pagan country, they apparently acted on the principle of not opposing too strongly existing religions, and, to make it easier for the converts, took over some of their practices. No doubt that was done, but, gentlemen, we can easily discriminate between the incidents and doctrines taught in the New Testament and practices of this kind which are found in churches even down to the present time. By writers of repute like Mr. Hyslop, we have been taught to discriminate. When modern writers come along with their new discoveries, we remove from their presentation all those things which relate to ritual and ceremonial, and simply deal with incidents and doctrines as they are taught in the New

48

Testament, and see whether or not heathen myths have any bearing upon these. I turn me now to Mr. Vivian again. He tells us on page 36 that the marvellous tales in the Canonical Gospels have been derived from " heathen legends-legends from which some of the more glaring absurdities and all that would mar the ethical ideals of the Christian religion were eclectically expunged." Well, they were pretty decent fellows if they took out some of the things that were inimical to the high morality and purity of the Christian faith, for in the original stories there are a good many. But is it true that the stories of the Gospels arose out of heathen myths ~ Is it true that these stories gradually grew and presently were fused together, and out of them came Christianity ~ Why, the theory upon the face of it is absurd, because, as Harnack tells you, the early Christian tradition in all its essential forms was in existence about the middle of the first century. It was not in existence before that .. Paganism was there all around it at its origin, and for three or four centuries surrounded it still. Christianity at its beginning was isolated in the land of Palestine, and was just the same in its essential features as now, and when the Christian documents came, 25 years later, they put that tradition into actual form as we have it to-day. They tell us what Christianity was in those days, and Christianity of to-day is but the carrying forward of the ancient belief. Heathen myths have not changed it from that time down to the present; thus the element of time is wanting to effect the change from heathen mythology to the form in which we have Christianity now. I find Mr. Vivian a little later, making this statement also: " It is just those very ideas of the Virgin Birth, resurrection and ascension appearing in the later legends which were nothing more nor less than solar myths" (he is referring to Buddhism). "In any case, whatever their origin, they were world-wide very many centuries before the Christian era." He is trying to show that Christianity is indebted to Buddhism, and not Buddhism to Christianity; in other words, that the heathen myths that were held in common in Europe and in India have been adopted into Christianity, and then he refers to Professor Rhys Davids, a high authority on Buddhist writings, and gives a quotation from his introduction to one of the Buddhist Suttas. Where Mr. Vivian makes a quotation, if I possibly can I verify it, and it was necessary to do so in this case, for in quoting Professor Davids he gives the passage thus: " That while he ventures to disagree with writers who argue that the resemblances in the Pali Pitakas and passages in the New Testament indicate that the New Testament as the later must be borrowed; he holds that the resemblance is due not to any borrowing on the one side or the other, but solely to

49

the similarity of .the conditions under which the movement grew." , I took down the Buddhist Suttas and examined the passage, and found that Mr. Vivian had left out a sentence that I think ought to be in it. Mr. Davids says: " There does not seem to me to be the slightest evidence of any historical connection between them; and whenever the resemblance is a real one" (and this is omitted) and it often turn; oui to be really least when it first seems to be greatest, and really greatest when it first seems least. It is due, not to any borrowing on the one side or the other, but solely to the, similarity of the conditions under which the two movements grew." That is, in the view of Professor Davids, the similarities between the two are not to be taken as decisive; where the similarity seems to be greatest it has often, upon investigation, proved to be least, and vice versa. He ends his introduction with some significant words (it seems that somebody had drawn the same conclusion as Mr. Vivian), and this moves him to say: " The reviewer has gone on to conclude that the parallels I had thus adduced are an unanswerable indication of the obligations of the New Testament to Buddhism. I must ask to be allowed to enter a protest against an inference which seems to me to be against the rules of sound historical criticism." ,. Let me now turn to the question: " Is Christianity' deducible from the solar myths ~" Let me explain. It is believed that our early fathers looked upon the great facts of nature; they observed, for instance, at the vernal equinox, that when the sun crossed over the line there was a revivification of all nature; that the flowers sprang up and opened out, and life seemed everywhere to be making itself manifest; and they said: " This is the birth of the sun," or "This is the resurrection of the sun." Then they observed, when the sun again crossed over the line there came on a period when darkness seemed gradually to prevail, and there followed a period of comparative death. There was no more flower or fruit, the leaves dropped from the trees, and the whole earth seemed to be at rest, and as if it had died; and from these early observations we are told, the race in its childhood gradually evolved the idea of a personality of a god who died and rose again, and that gradually this view got hold of the minds of the people, and when it had sufficiently developed, it became adopted into the Christian faith and centred upon the person of Jesus. Well, it has been very clearly shown by some writers that it is possible to turn every historical individual into a solar myth. In the later editions of Max Muller's Comparative Mythology you will find an amusing essay placed at the front of it, .in which a sarcastic writer tried to show the folly of the solar myth theory when carried to its furthest results. The writer took the life and work of Professor Muller, and turned it
(C

50

into a fine solar myth, and shows that there never was any Max Muller who lived in Oxford, or who married, or taught or wrote, or anything else. His whole story was only a solar myth! One of the latest of these myth parodies is by an American writer on Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation of Slaves. He shows that there never was any Abraham Lincoln, or any Emancipation of Slaves. "If the emancipator had been called John Lincoln we might have believed it, but' Abraham' is too much, and we might have thought that the Emancipation of Slaves actually occurred. " There were two races, and out of the mythical views held by these two peoples there has been evolved the personality of Abraham Lincoln. For see" Abraham" means "Free man" or "emancipator;" but they tacked on to " Abram" the " ham" which everyone knows is a symbol of the coloured race. The name of his vice-president was Hannibal Hamlin. Here again is the rise and growth of the myth. " Ham," as you see, appears in the last name; for as the Ad- . ministration was to emancipate the sons of Ham, they tacked it on to the vice-president's name, and" Hannibal"-well, that was a mistake of the printer, who should have printed" Hammibal!" But examine the myth of the rebellion. There were, according to the history, 28 States engaged in that struggle. Examination will show that in the name Abraham Lincoln there are 14 letters, and in Hammibal Hamlin there are 14 letters, giving the exact 28 States they represented. "That shows how the myth creator worked mathematically." "Two thousand years hence according the mythical theory," says the writer, " it will be said, ' No man of culture can believe for a moment there ever was any Lincoln or Hamlin, or that there was any war with the South.' " A by no means unfair parody on the boasted modern scholarship. The easiest ana readiest explanation is the best. We need not go hunting for an erudite and bizarre explanation of a thing if there is an easy and satisfactory explanation to hand. Suppose there was a fall of snow to-night. We go down the street and see a line of footprints. We say, naturally, " Somebody walked down the street after the snow fell. " A man comes along and says " No; an aeroplane came along, and ai man hung down from the basket with his hands downwards with a pair of boots on them, and he made the tracks.' , You want to get the readiest and easiest explanation that will deal with all the facts, and you do not want to go hunting round with Frazer, Drews and Grant Allen for some distant explanation that is as far away and as bizarre as that just given. Now, my belief is, and I think the evidence warrants it, that the Christianity of the New Testament never arose out of the heathen myths, for this significant reason, that wherever it came the old pagan religion died out before it. If Christianity had

51

originated-was born from-these pagan myths, whether singly or fused together (an impossible conception), it is certain that paganism would not have opposed it. But paganism did; it fought against it tooth and nail, and the Christians were everywhere persecuted. They were sent to their death, they were burnt at the stake, they were sent into the arena and cast to the lions-by what 1 By the power that represented paganism, and I am sure that no religion holding to myths that had given birth to Christianity would ever have opposed it. The next thing-wherever Christianity went it conquered. I mean by that, that paganism died out before it. Some of our friends talk about Mithraism as though they were familiar with it. I am not, and do not think they are, because there are existent no scriptures of Mithraism, but we do know that the cult spread over the Roman Empire, and there was a time when it seemed as if it must remain as the strongest religious power in the empire; but it died out, and Christianity lived on and flourished. The gods in the Roman pantheon (it is said there were 30,000 of them) became as nothing. Up the Nile there, where they worshipped the Old Gods of Egypt, Osiris, Horus and Amon Ra, little churches were built, and the people left their idolatry and worshipped where the Christians met. From Gaul to the Euphrates Christian churches flourished, and believers came into them and paganism died, because there was nobody to support it. I do not believe that Christianity arose out of pagan myths and at the same time was the means of putting it to death, as I do not believe paganism would have passed out of Christianity if it had been born out of paganism. But there is one thing that is noteworthy in this particular discussion, and that is that the mythologists whose works I have read, overlook a very important matter. I have here a translation from Dupuis' work on the Connection of Christianity with Solar W orship. Concerning the birth of Jesus Christ, he says: "He was represented as being born as all the ancient heroes were represented as being born-from a virgin." Well, I told you last Sunday that that statement is not true; ancient heroes are not said to be born of virgins, but he says the belief really sprang out of a solar myth. There is a certain time of the year when the sun enters into the constellation of the Virgin; and if you are at all imaginative you will be able to construct a story which is something like , the story in the New Testament. So he says: " If our theory on the mother of Christ, or on the famous celestial Virgin who gives Him birth, is true, it follows that the celestial Virgin ought everywhere to represent her" (that is, the mother of Jesus. And again he says: "We have seen that this son (Christ) was born on the same day on which was born, or con-

52

sidered to be born, the Sun." These allusions and comparisons may be quite satisfactory to some of you. I have heard them referred to, and the statements received with applause. But it seems to me that there is room for a suggestive question. Gentlemen, where does that Constellation of the Virgin come from ~ Mr. J. M. Robertson, in his Christianity and Mythology, tells us that the story of the wise man who came to the birth of Jesus is simply a development of part of the solar myth. There are three stars in the Belt of Orion, and these three stars represent the three wise men, and that explains the story in the Gospels. But whence comes the idea of Orion and of his belt ~ In this book of Dupuis', from which I have just quoted, he over and over again refers to the constellations of the heavens, and he is continually alluding to the Sun and its relationship to them, and he tells us that the stories of the New Testament are simply personifications of these constellation figures; but he does not tell us what we want to know-whence came these figures, Hercules, and Virgin and Cassiopeia, and the rest of them I do not want you to tell me about the solar mythical theory until you can explain to me about the stars figures you use, because you are only assuming. On your own showing your solar myth theory is valueless without the constellation figures. I want to know where they came from, and then possibly I shall be able to find what relationship exists between the heathen mythology and the study of Christianity. So now will I turn you to an examination of that phase of the subject, and I want you to follow me very closely. During the week, I was told 'by some of my friends who, were here last Sunday, that I made their heads ache by the mass of matter I put before them. Possibly I shall make some of your heads ache now; but I want you to bear with me whilst I try to give you my reasons for rejecting altogether the idea that Christianity sprang from heathen myths. I have for many years given my leisure time-what little I have-to the study of astronomical 'tnatters, more especially as they pertain to the earliest known centuries, and I tell you candidly that I do not find that those who are writing about solar and other myths have closely examined the important things I now wish to put before you. In connection with the study of astronomy there is a very remarkable thing that seems almost to defy explanation. If you examine star charts, atlases, or star globes, you will see that not only are the places of the stars marked on them, but that there is designed upon them a remarkable series of figures. Sometimes they are outlined, just as I have them here on the sheet; sometimes straight lines are drawn from star to star, and you are not able to just exactly follow the figure. The noteworthy thing is that the astronomers of to-day would rather be without them, because they do not need them-indeed, it is inconceivable

53

that they were ever needed for astronomical purposes-but there they remain still, and the astronomer cannot put them away. And so we speak of a star in " Orion," or of a star in the Bull, or in some other constellation, and in using the names we are referring all the time to certain figures that have been attached to the stars from the earliest known history of man. Now these figures, if they are put upon a sheet, as I have them here, exhibit a very' remarkable collection of strange things. How does it come to pass that here there should be a large number of snakes that seem, as Sir John Herschell says, to be " sprawling intermins bly over the heavens." How does it happen that here should' be a horse, here a fish, here a bull, and here bears, and a lion, and strange composite creatures 1 They are here upon this particular picture that has come down to us from the earliest known days. Here' are men, and women, and children, and eagles, and a crow, and snakes-all apparently interwoven inextricably together, and,' we ask, " Whence do they come?" The explanation for along time had been that they came out of the old stories originated amongst the early Greeks, and that they had simply transferred the ideas and persons of those stories and fixed them in pictured images in the heavens. For instance, you may read about Perseus and his conquest over the Gorgon. Here upon the chart is Perseus, with Medusas head. Did it arise out of the Grecian stories? They tell you about Hercules and his twelve labours, and they picture him wearing the lion's skin that he tore from the Nemean lion, and they will say that the Greeks transferred him into the heavenly sphere, and here he is. Is that so-is it ~ About the year 270 B.C. there was a Greek poet, Aratus, who wrote a poem in which he embodied the teachings of an astronomer, Eudoxus, who preceded him by nearly 200 years, that poem is quoted in the New Testament. Paul in Acts XVII says, " As certain also of your own poets have said, ' For we also are His offspring.' " The phrase is believed to have been taken out of the poem of Aratus and that poem shows that this particular pictured sphere as a whole was in existence in the third century before Christ, because Aratus simply cites those figures and tells of the position of the stars in them, repeating the astronomy of Eudoxus. But it is found that the pictured sphere represents an astronomical period much earlier than even the days of Eudoxus. This has led to further research and the latest discoveries made in the soil of old Babylonia have brought to light large numbers of tablets and boundary stones, and all sorts of objects on which these star figures are engraved, and Mr. Robert Brown, Jr. has issued two remarkable volumes entitled Primitive Constellations, in which he examines these and shows conclusively that the sphere did not originate from the Greeks, but in Babylonia, in the very earliest known times, at least three thousand years B.C.

54

in the days. when Sargon ruled. He names these figuresHercules, known as Sarru, the Great King; the Scorpion is there as we have it now; the Virgin as we have it now, and indeed, nearly all the figures are named on those old Babylonian stones and tablets dug up from the soil of ancient Accadia. Now that is the first step, and when I have got so far we reach the conclusion that the old Greeks did not originate these stories, they are not Grecian myths transferred jn picture form to the heavens, because these figures were in existence some three thousand years before Christ in another part of the world. Dr. Maunder, of the Greenwich Observatory, in several of his writings has presented a very remarkable and illuminating line of evidence which contributes to this subject. For instance he has asked the question, " Where was this particular set of figures originated? Whence did it come1 " He says you can find out in this way. Observe that this picture book does not cover all the heavens. You can note,that the centre is the North Pole, and you can note the limit of the Southern Stars that were taken into it and included in the forms appearing in the picture. Those stars only come down to about 40 deg. south latitude. Therefore the people who originated them must have lived in a corresponding latitude north. That limits enquiry at once to a certain belt of land,' say from 36-40 N., where they lived. But you can go further. You can note the animals pictured on the sphere. Here are bears, and serpents, a lion, scorpion, crab, and you observe there is no camel, no elephant, no hippopotamus, no tiger, nor crocodile, and you are limited almost immediately to a narrow section of the earth's surface where certain animals were domesticated. It shuts out Egypt and India, for the animals indigenous .to those lands are not pictured, and probably the presence of the lion shuts out Europe. From his examination Dr. Maunder concludes that the location where the sphere was designed is that bounded by the Black Sea on the north, the Mediterranean on the south, the Caspian on the east, and the Aegean on the west. He goes further, and proceeds to show when this picture book was originated. He holds that it was all designed at once-the interdependence of the forms shows this. It would be impossible for a man to imagine a figure and say, " There is a woman, or a scorpion," and then another man at a later time to add another figure, and for the whole to be gradually designed. There was a complete picture from the beginning, for .the figures make up a perfected whole. It is further agreed by Proctor and Maunder that the intention of those who framed the particular picture was to present a religious design. That was the object from the first. The method by which was obtained the approximate date when this particular picture was framed is thus presented. If the declinations of the stars on

55

the outer rim of this picture are noted, that, of course, makes a circle with the South Pole at the centre. When this circle was measured, it was discovered that that circle does not have the present South Pole directly as its centre. That is suggestive because it tells that when the centre of that circle was the South Pole is a period of about 3000 years before Christ. Let me here give a necessary explanation. There is one motion of the earth on its journey round the sun, and. it is supposed to be rotating every day; but there is another motion which is described as being like that of a top, which, when it begins to lose its momentum, sways round slowly in a circle. That motion of the top is said to illustrate a motion which the earth makes once in about twenty-six thousand years. That means that the star that was the North Pole Star 5000 years ago is not the North Pole Star to-day. We are now gradually approximating to a true line between the axis of the earth and our present North Star, and then the earth's axis will begin to point away from it towards another star. Now, in the light of that fact, the particular circle I have indicated has been measured, and it is found that the centre which was the South Pole in those days gives the date as about 3000 years B.C., so that this particular picture was framed by the early forefathers of the race 5000 years ago or more, in the particular part of the world I have mentioned-the neighbourhood of the Euphrates Valley -and when fashioned it was intended for religious purposes. Now, those things should be helpful. They were necessary statements before going further. Now let us look at the picture itself. I could not talk to you easily without it, so I had it hung up for you to see. I am sorry that it is not larger. I am afraid that some of you will not be able to distinguish all the figures . . Those who examine the sphere know that there are 12 signs on the ecliptic through which the sun moves once a year. That is, he takes his journey once a year through these 12 signs, and we speak of "The sun in the Ram-or in the Bull.' , You know the old rhyme" The Ram, the Bull, the heavenly Twins, And next the Crab, the Lion shines, The Virgin and the Scales; The Scorpion, Archer and Sea Goat, The man that carries the Water-pot, And Fish with glittering tails." But in connection with those 12 main signs are three others attendant upon them. These are called Decans. All the signs are interdependent, and a remarkable thing is that a closer examination shows that they lie in the picture in three groups, with four main signs to each group. Each main sign having three attendant signs, thus there are 48 figures in

56

all. Let me now invite attention to one of these groups. I start at the picture of a woman who from earliest known times has been known by the title of " Virgin, Latin " Virgo," Greek " Parthenos," Hebrew " Bethulah." And it is said that this is the earliest known allegorical representation of a pure woman. You may look in the heavens in vain to see her, but she is there according to the imagination of the early fathers. In her right hand she holds a branch, in the left an ear of corn, which is by the Latins called " Spica." Its name, according to the Arabs, is "AI Zimach." It is the old Hebrew word " Tsemecli," meaning " a branch." The first decan, or companion sign, is a woman sitting and holding a child. All through the old-time story, in Egypt and elsewhere, she is always represented as a virgin with a child, and the name of the child, " Coma," is said to be from an old Hebrew word which signifies" desired." The second decan is the " Centaur," half man and half horse, a being of two natures. So we are following from the Virgin, to a Virgin with a child, and thence to a being of two natures. The Hebrew name of the Centaur is " Bezeh," or " Despised," represented by the ancient Greeks as " Cheiron," who was a wise teacher who sought to benefit humanity, and was slain when so engaged. He holds a spear directed to the heart of the victim. The last constellation of this first group is the Harvester, who is going forth with his sickle to reap. He will gather his wheat into his garner, and will burn up the chaff with un quenchable fire. Let me repeat this outline :-A Virgin with a branch; a woman (a virgin) with a child, whojs of two natures, who is despised, and who is slain, and who eventually becomes the great Harvester. Next in order is the picture of the Scales, a huge pair of balances, lying across the path of the Ecliptic. What does that signify? Look at the star names. In one the star " Zuben al Genubi," which signifies " the price deficient." In the other " Zuben al Shemali" -" the price that covers." What is the price that covers? I pass down to the first decan and I find the Cross-the Southern Cross in our sky. That is the price that covers. From that I go to the victim who is falling as dead, and from the Victim I pass to the next decan, which is the " Crown." From the Cross to the Crown. He who suffered death for man's sin is now become the possessor by divine grace of the Crown. He who tasted death for every man has the right to wear the Crown over humanity to the honour and glory of God. I pass now to the Scorpion, and I want you to observe that every figure in this group is represented as in conflict. This Scorpion is reaching up to lay hold upon the balances. His tail is turned up to strike at the foot of the Serpent holder. The first decan is a long, writhing Serpent, wrapped up inextricably

57

IM

with the figure of a man. The Serpent has its head lifted in order to attain to the crown, but the Serpent holder in the next decan is struggling to prevent it from reaching the Crown. The next is a similar figure, Hercules, who holds in his left hand the apples from the Garden of Hesperides, and in his right a club. His foot is placed upon the head of the great Dragon, who winds his scaly folds about the path of the ecliptic. One great series of figures-the Scorpion with his tail uplifted to wound the foot of Ophiuchus-Ophiuchus with his foot pressed upon the head of the Scorpion, and the idea is repeated by Hercules, who presses his foot upon the head of the Dragon. I now pass to the figure of the Archer, who is a repetition of the Centaur, but he, instead of being, as the former, despised, is a conqueror-he has an arrow directed towards the heart 'of the Scorpion. The string of the bow is drawn to its full tension to his shoulder. The first decan from him carries us to the figure of " Lyra," the constellation of a harp,' which is borne upwards on the neck of an eagle, and the name of its chief star, Vega, means " Praise." Thus, from the conquest by the Archer we proceed to Praise, and thence to an Altar which burns with a flame downwards, which is provided for destruction, and from that we leap upward to view the great Dragon. From whichever way you look, the attitude of the great Dragon is that it is falling, and falling downwards towards the Altar below. I have given you but one division of this wonderful picture book, but is there not thus far clearly outlined that which we have read-more fully developed, more fuHy declared-in historic fact in the New Testament? Here upon the heavens 3000 years before Christ-5000 years ago-were supposed to be pictured these figures. And the world's grey fathers, as they imagined them, nailed them to the heavens by the glittering stars, for their descendants to look upon and thus to remember the great truths handed down. Before writing came into being, these pictures were conceived and handed on, and the men' of those early days believed that they read in them the predestined plan of God for man's salvation. Here is a wonderful thing. The figures have come down to us without change of any importance. .' In Egypt, in Mexico, in India the Sphere is found, and even in South Africa, before the Boer War, some men were prospecting and came upon a hidden cave, and discovered a wooden bowl, and on the rim of that bowl were inscribed the main signs of the Zodiac. They have been known to the world's grey fathers from the earliest days. What do they mean ~ Your writers who deal with the myths, who speak so glibly of Perseus and Hercules, who talk of solar myths in the constellations and their relation to Jesus Christ, let them tell us whence came these figures which they employ, and then we can better deal, with

58

the solar myth theory. If I study them I seem to see that those men of the olden time had great truths taught them, and in order that they might impress them upon their own minds and the minds of their descendants, they imagined these signs, and then used them as memory helps. As I speak to you now the constellation of the Scorpion is climbing overhead. Who first imagined that figure with uplifted tail ready to strike and with its great claws outstretched towards the Balance? You may gaze into the heavens and not see it, or anyone of these figures. They were imagined there, and when they saw those glittering points of light thus associated, they were reminded of the glorious purposes of God originally made known. You know the 19th Psalm :" The heavens declare the glory of God And the firmament sheweth His handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night sheweth knowledge. There 'is no speech nor language, Their voice cannot be heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth And their words to the end of the world." There is no sound, no voice, no utterance; yet their words have gone to the ends of the earth. The heavens, then, are speaking of the glory of God. It is said that means the glory of God in creation. But glory, His glory, takes in creation and redemption too, and those antediluvian fathers knew the main purposes of redemption" and, not to forget them, they put them into picture form. And here is the document in which the story of Life and of Kingdom glories, from its beginning to its close, is told. Can you otherwise explain it? Can anybody ? . Can any of these " mythical" gentlemen tell us about this matter ~ When they write or talk, my mind comes back to this old-time picture, and I ask, " Whence came it ~" Your heathen myths, of which so much is now made, are but broken and distorted forms of the original truths set forth in this. In. the passage of the centuries they have become defaced and worn, and have been changed from their true primitive teaching. No! Christianity never came out of thcse defaced memories, but is fastened by the indissoluble links of actual historical fulfilment to this picture which the old-time men' fancied they saw in the heavens, and which has been handed on to posterity as the finest heirloom they could bestow. I think I have said enough; perhaps I have talked too long, but I have had so much to put in that I must be forgiven if I have trespassed upon your patience. Let me say that if these things are as I have now sketched, then remember we. have come to one of the most remarkable manifestations of Divine grace and wisdom that are possible for the human mind to con-

59

ceive. Paul, speaking to the people at Lystra, said: " God hath not left Himself without a witness," and this testimony supports him. Men early departed from the truth they had; they left the revelation of God, and wandered in darkness, and, as they have done with all good gifts, defaced and degraded it from its original meaning, and this picture testifies against them. But now we have the Book of God with its story of Jesus Christ, and when we put that side by side with this we see that the two fit together like the two parts of a tally stone. In the light of this investigation, we can be certain that Christianity is not indebted to heathen myths, for they are but the faint and marred remembrances of the great original revelation. Under the stress of these modern attacks upon the faith, I urge you to " Wait, nor against the half-learned lesson fret, Nor chide at old belief, as if it erred; Because thou canst not reconcile as yet The Worker and the Word."

QUESTIONS.

Question: You would infer that the Antediluvians had an inspiration from God to know the things which came to pass in the days of Christianity ~ Answer: No. I do not so limit it because the main teachings which are contained in this chart are common, not only to Christianity, but to Judaism and to the original wide-world' known relationship of man to God as the creature to the Creator, so that when I speak of the parallels I refer to those truths which are not special to Christianity at the present time, but are common to that form of religious teaching, given at first by God for the development of His purposes in redemption. Qttestion: You stated that the animals depicted on the sheet could never have been depicted unless they had been seen by the early fathers. Were there any animals known like some of those on the sheet, as the centaurs ~ Answe1': No, I don't think so; but t.here are places on earth where men are known and where horses are known. Q1testion: Was ever the Southern
Mediterranean Sea ? Cross visible from the

Answer : Yes. I spoke just now about the precession of the Equinoxes. When the star Thuban, in the Dragon, was the Pole Star, the upper part of the Cross was visible, but let me say that it is not given upon the earliest known chart-the Gre60

cian chart ~hat is kn~wn to us to-day-but eminent writers years ago have included It, although not visible in their latitudes. About the time when ,Jesus Christ is said to have been crucified the upper stars of the Southern Cross were visible at Jerusalem' but by the precession of the Equinoxes they have fallen out of sight in those latitudes.
[The matter is important enough for me to subjoin the following:Humboldt's Cosmos says: " The Southern Cross began to become invisible in 52deg. 3Im.. north latitudo 2,900 before our era." At the time of Claudius Ptolemaeus the beautiful star at the base of the Cross had still an altitude of 6deg. 10m. at its meridian passage at Alexandria. "-G.A.]

Q1lestion: Is is not a fact that closing of the eyes in prayer has been handed down by the sun-worshippers-? Answer: I cannot tell you. I don't know; but it is a very good thing, in order that you may have your attention drawn aside from everything else but the subject on which you are engaged. Q1testion: The lecturer said that because the critics do not
agree in their criticism. criticism, therefore he could not accept their

Answer: Excuse me. What I said was that they do not agree as regarding the origin of myths. Question: Yousaid you could not accept them because they could not agree. If you do not accept the theory as to the origin of myths, because the critics do not agree, why should we accept Christianity, seeing that the people in the Church do not agree? Answer: I do not accept any part of the New Testament because somebody else accepts it. In all my preaching I always say, " Do not believe because I say it," and the advice I give I take for myself and I do not believe anybody on Christian matters because' they say it. I have a Bible of my own. I do not depend upon others, and if my conclusions do not agree with theirs I cannot help it. I can only follow where the exact language of the Bible leads me, and I am sure I cannot, go wrong if I follow it. If I follow human opinions I will land myself in a swamp somewhere. Question: Are there not a great many contradictions
Bible? in the

Answer: I would not like to say, right off, because I do not know what you mean. A great many of the thi~gs which are said to be contradictions are not, .and those which appear to stand as contradictions are absolutely unimportant. They do
61

not affect a single doctrine in the Bible,' fT.mu.the. beginning the end. .ti 1)91 .' _ .

to

. Q'l.lestion: There are 237 contradictjon.Pi~' {li~.Acts and i'n the Pauline Epistles.. If the. Bible is divinely w~itten, why do they exist? Did you count those yourself ? I did not. . ,. How do you know they are there'-1 _ Because Professor Harnaek points them out. He says that in the Acts of the Apostles there are 23.7 contradictions. I do not believe it. I am here to prove it: Start right away. Professor Harnack says there are 237. I do not care if Professor Harnack says there are 5,237, if he does not prove it to my satisfaction. Are you referring' to Harnack's book Luke, the Physician? . I am. Then I will take the Bible to show that Professor Harnack brings forward things which are not contradictions, and. he does so because he does not know the purpose of the Bible. Will you say you are a better Hebrew and Greek scholar than Harnack ?' . My dear friend, I am not a Hebrew scholar, I am not a Greek scholar, nor 'am I an English scholar: but when I say that Professor Harnaek does not know the great purpose of the Bible, I say that which I am perfectly well able to prove. .
[Note.-I did not remember that Harnack made such a statement. The book was used in a former lecture, but was not available when thel question was asked. An examination afterwards failed to find the statement made by the questioner.-G.A,]

Q1te~tion: You said that Rationalism was rampant at the beginning and also is going out, but was not heard tell of in the middle. centuries ? Answer: I do not remember saying that. . What I said Was that the same kind of objections were raised in the early centuries tha are now being' brought. They were brought by Celsus, Porphyry, and by the Jew' 'I'ripho, precisely similar to those of the present. Q1testion: centuries? Why did Rationalism die out in the middle

Answer: If "it died out, I suppose they thought it was not good enough. I am not bound to explain these things. I do not want to know how Rationalism arose and how it died out. I know something of the history of Rationalism, but I am not par-

'62 .

ticularly interested in such questions. 1 the men of those days changed their opinions, it was because of powerful influences. For instance, into that England of ours in the 5th century and before, there came those stalwart men from the North lands, who populated large parts of England, and brought with them their gods Woden, and 'I'hor, and Baldur the Beautiful. One day there came into the court of Edwin of Northumbria a wandering monk, and he talked of a man who had been put to death on a cross in Palestine, and who arose from the dead, and those rough men who had worshipped gods, brave, stalwart like themselves, listened while he told them of the Christ Child. One of them said: ' , We are like men sitting in the hall, and outside is the darkness. A sparrow flits in at the window, crosses the room, and goes out on the opposite side. So is our life. It comes in from the darkness, it goes out in the darkness. If there is one who can tell us something of the beyond, then I think we should listen." And they did listen, and the gods W oden and Thor and Baldur the Beautiful faded out of the ken and worship of those forefathers of ours, and they took in the Christ from over the seas, and said: ' , We will have Him for our Leader and Guide, and we will render to Him our worship;" and let me say that their honest, self-respecting choice of the Christ of God (without pressure, not at the spear point or the edge of the sword) to be their Saviour and Guide, has, as it seems to me, become the root whence came the strong clinging of our English folk to that story which is told in the Gospels.

63